…..we also need to talk about disordered use of NFP ,which I fear is very widespread. I knew of this sermon a few weeks ago, and meant to post on it, so I was grateful when Dr. Jay B reminded me of it today incidentally. It’s audio only, but very worth listening to.

In certain locales, or within certain groups of Catholics, NFP is frequently sold as something which is, in practice, Catholic contraception. I have heard certain radio personalities on EWTN talk about couples using contraception for the duration of their marriage, having “discerned” that God wants them to have no children or 2 children spaced exactly 4.5 years apart like mom did, or whatever. Such a use of NFP could potentially be moral, but it’s also a great temptation to “discern” just exactly what you prefer. And what do we then miss?

Yesterday’s Vortex covers the main topic of contraception, and how a young woman “educated” in Jesuit schools and presently matriculating at the CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERCIA!!!!!!! justifies her contraceptive use, up to and including happily taking abortifacient “emergency contraception.”

(Sorry, got the video embedded right this time).

Do note that in spite of her apparent profligate contraceptive use, she still became worried she was pregnant, and had to resort to an abortifacient. I love it how the good Jesuits just assume kids are fornicating. How wonderful. To think that this is the order that largely saved the Church after the protestant revolt – it’s a tragedy how they’ve fallen.

I can say that Karalen’s understanding and practice of the Faith is on a par with another young lady I came across some months ago who also has been edumacated at Jesuit schools. I mean, the same utter lack of understanding of the faith, the same moral indifferentism, the same reduction of the Church down to a feel good social service agency – it’s all there.

I’ve noted several times since the Obamacare contraception mandate issue broke a month or so ago that the bishops – the leadership of the Church – were in a weak position because Doctrine regarding contraception had not been taught or enforced for decades. I said that the bishops had a golden opportunity to “pivot” from this persecution into a period of really substantial catechesis.

For 40 years, the Church has acted as if these critical moral teachings did not matter enough to teach and now they are saying they matter so much that they are willing to go to the mattresses and even shut down the critical Catholic healthcare system over it. This is the height of disingenuousness.

Now of course I believe that these matters are critical and worth every effort to stop government from forcing us to do something immoral. But the Bishops and their priests cannot have it both ways. If you say this stuff matters, you better darn well act like it matters.

So while you engage in the fight over this HHS mandate, here are some other things you could/should be doing. First, as the Speaker has suggested, start enforcing it. For those Catholic politicians who openly oppose the Church in this matter and on the life issues, act like it matters. Publicly excommunicate them, for their benefit and for ours—and you can start with the botox biddy. They decry our lack of enforcement, well give ‘em some enforcement.

Second, call for a one year moratorium on homilies and replace it with a year of sermons. Banish the weak sauce of the weekly milquetoast bible study and replace it with a year of sermons on the hard issues. [I have read several reports that congregations have broken out into open applause when priests have given sermons against the use of contraception] Teach Catholics in the pews what the Church teaches on contraception, chastity, abortion and why the Church teaches it. Teach, for heaven’s sake teach. Act like it matters and teach, even if means you get angry letters and phone calls at the rectory and even if means collections go down. Teach.

I am forty five years old and I have never heard a sermon on contraception. [I have. Many. But I never heard one before we transitioned to more traditional parishes. I’m not 45. And I’ve only been a Catholic for 13 years. But I think we all know what Archbold talks about is incredibly common.] ever. Bishops, this is your fault. Fix it. And ask about these things in confession. Stop deferring to people’s consciences and start forming them.[Woot! YES!] This is the hard work of evangelization that has been neglected for 40 years. Get to it, now.

Act like it matters and a strange thing might happen, it will matter.

What Archbold says is nothing new. It’s been said by many others, including Michael Voris and myself. This is not a narrow perception. It is a problem widespread throughout the Church.

I picked this up on Bishop Rene Gracida’s site, a commenter quoting Pope Benedict XVI:

. . . the implicit goal of all of modernistic struggles for freedom is to be at last like a god who depends on nothing and no one, whose own freedom is not restricted by that of another. . . this desire presupposes not an image of God but an idol.” [Essential Pope Benedict XVI, 347]. And who might that idol be, I wonder?

The Pope goes on to say: “The question of abortion. In the radicalization of the individualistic tendency of the Enlightenment, abortion appears as a right of freedom: the woman must be able to take charge of herself. She must have the freedom to decide whether she will bring a child into the world or rid herself of it. She must have the power to make decision about her own life, and no one else can–so we are told–impose from the outside any ultimately binding norm. What is at stake is the right to self-determination. [Op Cit, 346]. The woman who aborts does not acknowledge that she and the child are “from” God. Nor does she acknowledge that she and the child are “for” God. This is the concept of total freedom. Historically, who other than Satan has dared to say that they are not “from” anyone or “for” anyone, but themselves?

Liberals are fond of calling the Middle Ages the “Dark Age.” I think I know a Dark Age when I see one and I’m looking at one right now.

I, and many others of those who are serious about the Christian faith, share this view. I don’t know precisely where this culture is headed, but it looks like a very dark, demonic path.

The eternal temptation – “that you should be as gods.” If only, they say. If only we allow women to abort, can women be “free.” If only we allow the government to control all aspects of our lives can we prosper and be “liberated.” If only we engage in government-supported and -approved sexual debauchery, can we find happiness. If only we kill God and His terrible, guilt-inducing, freedom-inhibiting influence, will society finally advance.

Yes, yes. It’s been tried many times before. The result is always disaster and misery. But it appears the world is ready to have a go at godlessness again. I pray for God’s mercy for all of us. Sometimes, God does something to divert the world’s headlong descent into darkness.

I spent many years studying and admiring military history and military technology. You could even say I made a fetish of it. I put up a post earlier today that even as I was writing it I was struggling with. It was about a movie that’s out showing the activities of Navy SEALs. I’ve taken the post down.

I just don’t think it’s where I want to go right now. It doesn’t fit with what I’m trying to do now.

I posted the other day about radical utilitarian “ethicists,” whose ethics are totally detached from any anchor in the natural law or Eternal Truth, who argued that because abortion is practiced, it should be just fine to kill newborns as well. Many opponents of abortion have argued that the same mentality that leads to the killing of children in utero would eventually be applied to those who are born, to be met with claims that such “slippery slope” arguments are logical fallacies and untrue. But in reality, some slopes are dang slippery:

The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call “post-birth abortion”), has respondedto widespread criticism by pointing out that promoting the killing of newborns [is nothing new: in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced. [If you want to see where the secular pagans want to go, look to Holland. “Forced euthanasia” (murder of old or sick people), killing of “disabled” infants, legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, moral decay, complete secularism, apostasy in the Church……it’s a wonderful, dreamy place!]

Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the “hate speech” [You see, they have an inalienable right to express their opinions, but criticism is “hate speech.”] directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” [I think the vast majority of people, and all people with strive to live a life grounded in Christian morality, know who the fanatics are. And no, I don’t want a “liberal society,” I want a Catholic society]

In response to the backlash, Savulescu wrote that the arguments in the article “are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris.”[Every single one of these is an exteremist utilitarian materialist – the ends justify the means, those in power dictate what is “right,” etc. The apotheosis of dialectical materialism]

He also observes that the paper “draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.” [Well, shame on the Netherlands, and why is the Church there not declaiming this evil to the heavens? This is a crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. I can find nothing in English on this topic – perhaps in Dutch, I don’t know]

The fact that The Netherlands already permits the killing of disabled newborns is not widely known, even by many in the pro-life movement. The practice is permitted under the so-called Groningen Protocol, which outlines the circumstances under which a physician may deliver a lethal injection to a newborn who suffers from a disability, at the request of the child’s parents.

An article published in 2008 in the prestigious Hastings Center Report about the Protocol similarly provoked outrage after the authors argued that disabled babies might be “better off dead.”

The authors of that article also linked infanticide to legalized abortion, arguing that infanticide may in fact be the morally superior alternative to abortion………….

………..Savluescu, the director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, has made the news in the past for arguing that the requirement for organ donors to be dead at the time of organ harvesting should be removed [Certainly, to extend the life of such brilliant minds, any contingency is reasonable] and that “mandatory” organ donation should be instituted. [The distance between this twisted view, and what was described in the dystopian Logan’s Run and THX-1138, are miniscule] He has also argued that humanity has a “moral obligation” to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) to select the most intelligent embryos for the good of society. [So, he’s also a eugenicist. Nice.]

Actually, these academics, educated perhaps to the point of embecillity, or at least to the point of monstrous utilitarianism, do have a point. There is great hypocrisy in our culture, with a widely prevalent outrage over claims that murdering infants is no different from murdering the baby still in the womb. There is no difference. If you tolerate the latter, you will sooner or later be faced with demands to kill the former, because the evil, selfish logic is all the same. When you say that any human life, from the moment of conception to natural death, is not equal, that it is permissible to kill certain types of life, the ground crumbles beneath your feet, the slope gives way, and in an instant you will find yourself mired in the darkest caverns of hell.

These “ethicists” are the intellectual vanguard, they point the way towards the future in our society if we do not repent and change radically. We have created a monster, a soul-devouring killing machine, that profits on the death of others, that kills for the sake of convenience, that encourages immoral perversion and sexual decadence not seen since the worst days of Rome, and that, deep down, knows it is doomed to eternal torment and so is willing to go to any length to extend this current life and make it as pleasurable, as convenient as possible.

That monster is us, or those of us who adhere to the satanic logic that is the whole contraception/abortion complex.

I reject the whole rotten mess. How long can a culture so totally detached from all that is Good and Holy survive?

Not here in Dallas, although there are some priests who could probably use a reminder, at the least, but up in Illinois:

An Illinois bishop has confirmed that a Roman Catholic priest was fired [I doubt that’s the right term, but……..?] because he “simply would not and could not pray the prayers of the Mass” under a new translation that went into effect last year.

In a rare letter of explanation about an internal personnel dispute, Bishop Edward Braxton of Belleville, Ill., publicly responded to the firing of the Rev. William Rowe, who has been pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Carmel, Ill., for 18 years.

The case, which has garnered international media attention, also led to a second priest in the Belleville diocese to resign a leadership post in protest.

Braxton said in the Feb. 14 letter that “several” parishioners of St. Mary’s had brought audio and video evidence to the bishop “which showed the many changes and omissions Fr. Rowe makes in the Mass.”

Rowe offered Braxton his resignation last year after a meeting during which the bishop barred Rowe from improvising prayers during Mass [so, he wasn’t ‘fired,’ he resigned] Rowe said that when he prays the Roman Missal — the book of prayers, chants and responses used during the Mass — he tends “to change the words that are written in the book to match what I was talking about” in the homily. [So, the priest is deciding that his views as to what should be said at Mass trump the established norms, his oath of obedience, and the collective guidance of the Magisterium/Tradition]

According to Catholic liturgical practice, priests are duty bound to use the prayers laid out in the Missal. “These changes consist of far more than ‘a few words,’” Braxton wrote.

In an interview two days after the letter was sent, Rowe called the letter “pure Bishop Braxton.”

“He mentioned in the letter that we clash in our ecclesiology — our image of the church,” said Rowe, 72. “He’s right. He seems to consider the church as the bishops’, and my notion is that the church starts with the people.” [What an absolute straw-man, red herring “argument.” It’s not even an argument, just an emotional ploy. The Church consists of those in union with the See of Rome and who accept all Catholic Doctrine. Properly offering Mass is a part of that submission to Doctrine. When priests clericalize by making themselves the star of the show, by determining that they have more wisdom to decide what should be said at Mass than Holy Mother Church, they are putting themselves on an enormous pedestal which is also an enormous temptation to pride. It is very sad to see this kind of thing still goes on.]

If you read the comments at the link, you will see that there are a number of people who are very attracted to Fr. Rowe’s style of improvisation. In some of those same comments, you will also read much apostasy from the Faith. And that, aside from the abuse of the most glorious institution in the history of the world, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is the main issue – such abuse is invariably tied with dissent or outright heresy regarding Doctrine, as well. What these priests have done is to build their own private little church, with them as personal pope, determining what doctrine will be adhered to and how the Mass will be said, and they’ve tragically led many souls astray in this process. Many of these men have been priests for decades. Many have some charisma. And many of the beliefs they reject play right into the hands of the culture which tells us never to suffer, never to deny ourselves anything, that everything should be just as we want it every second of the day – the antithesis of growth in the interior life and learning to take up our cross and follow Our Lord Jesus Christ. And so, they are very influential, and many older Catholics cannot recall a time when they weren’t being “led” by men such as this. It is the apotheosis of the cult of man.

It’s also a complete rejection of the tradition of the Church and what constituted a faithful Catholic life for centuries – and still constitutes it. I saw a reference to “cookie-cutter” Catholics in the comments, as if those who adhered to the Doctrine of the Faith were simply mindless robots, little “Stepford children” for the bishops. What a joke (do you think Bishop Farrell would think me a “cookie-cutter”?), and what a sad insight into the commenter’s view of the Faith. And yet these folks are likely not much to be blamed – they were led to where they are at today by men who fell in their vocations. It’s very sad.

……including, potentially, the United States. Article 1 – a British man (poor, modernist, utterly lost Britain) was detained and interrogated by Gatwick airport security for stating the obvious – it is ridiculous that non-muslims must go through onerous body cavity and other searches at airports, while muslim women in hijabs can sail right through:

David Jones, 67, commented on the ease with which a woman with her face covered by a hijab had walked through security controls, the Daily Mail reports. [Isn’t this exactly backwards? Is there one class of person which has a propensity to blow up airplanes, or fly them into buildings? And yet that class is exactly the one which is given a free pass for all of our ludicrous, ineffectual security procedures?]

“If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen,” he said to an official as he went to pass through an X-ray scanner at Gatwick Airport.

To his surprise he was met on the other side of the barrier by officials who detained him for an hour in an attempt to force him to apologise for making an offensive remark. Police were also called.

……Mr Jones said that when he had made his original remark, the guard had appeared to agree with him, saying: “I know what you mean, but we have our rules and you aren’t allowed to say that.” [The right not to be offended – no matter how ludicrous and inconsequential the “offense” is – apparently rules the day in Britain. But remember, this isn’t Spain]

Mr Jones said a female security guard told him she was Muslim and was deeply distressed by his comment. [Perhaps that distress has been caused or exacerbated by the left’s policy of pitting one group against another, encouraging aggrievement and leading to individuals with hair-trigger sensitivity?]

Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reports on a disturbing casein which a state judge in Pennsylvania threw out an assault case involving a Muslim attacking an atheist for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Judge Mark Martin, an Iraq war veteran threw the case out after ruling that there was insufficient evidence. But then he berated the plaintiff in what appears to be an invocation of Sharia law.

The incident occurred at the Mechanicsburg, Pa., Halloween parade where Ernie Perce, an atheist activist, marched as a zombie Muhammad. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, attacked Perce, and he was arrested by police. [that actually makes me laugh……zombie mohammad]

Judge Martin threw the case out on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence, refusing to allow a grainy video of the incident to be entered in [he also threw out eyewitness testimony from a police officer]But then he suggested to Perce that Elbayomy was obligated to attack Perce because of his culture and religion. Judge Martin stated that the First Amendment of the Constitution does not permit people to provoke other people. [Well, it depends on what you mean by “provoke” – pointing a loaded gun at me and saying you’re going to kill me is not protected speech. But the Westboro “Baptist” sicko cultists keep getting notoriety for committing heinous crimes against the families of KIAs from our useless overseas wars – because even their terrible speech is protected. But there are many (eg, the left) who want to apply a different standard towards islam and other favored groups. In the case of those groups, free speech does not apply.IF the judge really used this claim as part of his decision, it’s unconstitutional] He also called Perce, the plaintiff in the case, a “doofus.” In effect, Perce was the perpetrator of the assault, in Judge Martin’s view, and Elbayomy the innocent.The Sharia law that the Muslim attacker followed trumped the First Amendment.

Now, the judge has come out with his own version, which conflates some of the above, but not nearly all, and it does appear that he did say it was the atheist’s fault for bringing the attack on himself and that provocation against islam like that is not protected speech.

Cultural exhaustion frequently stems from collapse in religious practice. It can be stemmed and even reversed (although examples are pretty sparse), but it usually takes some great calamity to bring about the reversal. Or, the culture just falls apart (Persia, several Chinese cultures, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Carolingians, etc). Then, some new culture rises in its place. Should it come to that, will that culture wave the banner of the crescent, or the Cross?

The Lenten Ember Days start tomorrow. Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday of this week are days of fasting (having one full meal and two smaller meals that don’t equal, together, the full one) and abstinence (some sources say partial abstinence, meaning you can have one meal with meat, but the ‘traditional’ schedule I posted below recommends complete abstinence from flesh meat on Ember Days, which is what I had always understood.

This is a penitential season! Penitence means sacrifice! Get your fish on! Or your beans and mashed potatoes, whatever!

I meant to post this a week ago, darnit, but it completely slipped my mind (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!). David Werling, at his gorgeous site, has very helpfully reminded what constitutes a traditional keeping of the Lenten fast. That is to say, this is how the fast was kept before all the indults and changes relaxed the discipline greatly. I will say I, and my family, are not at the point of practicing this fully just yet. I doubt we will do the full fast in this manner this Lent, but we will try to up the days of fast and abstinence/partial abstinence to three instead of one – Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. Hey, it’s Ember Week anyway, so we were going to need to keep a 3 day fast, but we’ll strive to carry it through all of Lent. Anyway, the particulars:

According to the traditional Lenten Fast:

*all days of Lent are days of fast and partial abstinence, except:

*Ash Wednesday and the Wednesday in the Lenten Embertide, which are days of fast and abstinence;

*Fridays and Saturdays, which are fast and abstinence;

*Sundays, which are neither fast nor abstinence.

Abstinence: In the Latin Church, abstinence means refraining from eating flesh meat, or in other words, meat from mammals or fowl. This includes soup or gravy made from these kinds of meats. Meat from cold blooded animals is allowed, however, such as fish. This is why Fridays are known as “Fish Fridays.” Traditionally, the laws of abstinence apply to all aged 7 and over, but the new Code of Canon Law applies it to all who have completed their 14th year.

Partial abstinence: Flesh meat, and soup or gravy made from flesh meat, may be eaten only once during the course of the day, at the principle meal.

Fasting: Eating only one full meal (which may include meat) and two smaller, meatless meals that don’t equal the large one meal. No eating is allowed between meals, but various beverages such as water, milk, tea, coffee, and juices can be consumed. Meat can be eaten, usually for the principle meal, but only if the day is not a day of abstinence as well as a fast day. Traditionally, everyone over 21 years of age and under 59 years of age is bound to observe the law of fast; but the present Code of Canon Law sets the ages of 18 and 59 as the limits.

As in all things, we need to practice the virtue of prudence. All situations should be weighed in the light of Christ’s love. Traditional Catholics fast in order to share in the sacrifice of Christ and to discipline the body. Our bodily discipline should be directed toward the cultivation of virtue, not an indulgence in austerities for the sake of show or false pretenses.

This is pretty challenging, far more so than the discipline currently in force in the United States (or anywhere in the Church, for that matter, of which I am aware). It is thus completely voluntary to try to follow this schedule. You will not incur any penalty if you do not. But there are great Graces for those who do follow this more rigorous schedule of fasting and self-denial! Joyful adherence to this much more rigorous fast will lead to tremendous spiritual benefits and growth.

Blessed, O Lord, be Thy Name forever, Who hast been pleased that this trial and tribulation should come upon me. (Dan 3:26) [So much Grace flows into us if we take our sufferings, disagreeable situations, and mortifications joyfully and offer them to God!]

I cannot fly from it, but must of necessity fly to Thee that Thou mayest help me, and turn it to my good.

Lord, I am now in tribulation, and my heart is not at ease; but I am much afflicted with my present suffering.

But for this reason I came unto this hour, that Thou mightst be glorified when I shall be exceedingly humbled and delivered by Thee. [A very good sentiment to recall, during these days of mortification during Lent.]

May it please Thee, O Lord, to deliver me; for poor wretch that I am, what can I do and whither shall I go without Thee? (Ps 108:21)

Give me patience, O Lord, at this time also.

Help me, O my God, and I will not fear how much soever I may be oppressed.

And now, in the midst of these things, what shall I say? Lord, Thy Will be done (Matt 6:10) [One of the very best things we can pray, if not the best – just agree with God that His Will be done. Such humility, such trust!] , I have well deserved to be afflicted and troubled. I must needs bear it, and would to God it may be with patience, until the storm pass over and it be better.

But Thy almighty hand is able to take away from me this temptation also, and to moderate its violence, lest I sink under it, as Thou hast often done heretofore for me, O my God, my mercy! (Ps 58:18)

And the more difficult this is to me, the easier to Thee is this change of the right hand of the Most High. [As the awesome old saying goes, offer it up!]

————End Qu0te————-

A priest has given me the very good advice, that when faced with a temptation or a sin that is very difficult to overcome, simply offer it to God. I visualize placing the sin on the altar (which he also advised), and just leaving it there, and turning away from it. Tell the Lord the temptation or sin is too much for you, and ask Him to take it. You can even visualize running away after the fact, or imagine punting it over some hill if that works better. I have found this method can work very well, if we offer to God these weaknesses or sins of ours, He will aid us.